It was fun while it lasted.

But if you're bored shitless, you know where on cyberspace to find me!

I've been blogging since 9 October 2003. That’s just over 3 years ago. For a person who gets bored easily, I’m surprised that I’m still relatively active. Blogging has indeed revolutionised the way we go “Dear Diary”. And apart from the choice of medium, the only other material difference between the two is the fact that when we blog, we do so with the intention or sometimes hope, of having our thoughts read.

It’s quite amusing to read some of the old entries. It makes you realise how you’ve changed, matured and quite possibly, aged. I miss by blogspot account. Although I maintain both blogspot and LJ accounts (because I cannot let go of the former), I've not been diligent in mirroring everything from LJ onto Blogspot.

On a totally unrelated note, will a 2% increase in GST curb consumer spending? If it does, then such a move may hurt the economy (and big brother’s pockets) If not, then I guess big brother’s really an ass. And is it just my imagination or did big brother announce recently that public transport costs is going to go up yet again. It seems as though everything but our pay is going up.

And you wonder why the gulf between the rich and the poor in Singapore is getting wider.

If boredom could kill, I’d be dead many times over by now.

Some people have called me crazy and remarked that a million “girls” would kill for my job. Well, I guess I’m just not one of them.

Even the janitor has more work than I do.

And you wonder where I found the time to write all that shite over the last couple of weeks.

I am beginning to feel less intelligent every day.

After perusing a deluge of comments and opinions canvassed by many proponents, it would appear that the basis of the repeal of s. 377A boils down to 2 main factors. First, by repealing s. 377, which will in effect, decriminalise the act of anal and oral sex between consenting heterosexual adults, the Government will in effect be supporting the case of discrimination against homosexuals. This is because the crux of the offence will no longer have anything to do with the nature of the act itself; rather it will concern the class of people who engage in it. Currently, anyone, straight or gay, can be charged under s. 377 or s. 377A if caught engaging in anal or oral sex. But by making it ok for straights only, isn’t that outright discrimination? Is that really in line with the Governments move of wanting to be a more liberal, open and inclusive society? I think the Government may have shot itself in the foot there.

More importantly, the Ministry for Home Affairs has explained that they will continue to maintain the current policy of non-interference and non-enforcement if adult gay sex is engaged in private. If that is to be the case, then it begs the question, why the need for s. 377A? What merit is there, to keep a law which the Government has by their very own admission says, it will rarely enforce? Is it there to placate those who are fundamentally against homosexuality? What the government should realise is that its retention is symbolic in that it will, like it has all along, continue to be the bedrock for the current prejudicial attitudes and discrimination towards homosexuality. And these attitudes will become even more pronounced with the proposed repeal of s. 377 only.

Under what sort of circumstances will people who do contravene s. 377A get caught? Those who say, engage in oral sex in a back-lane behind some gay joint in Tanjong Pagar? Or perhaps those who engage in anal intercourse at one of the more popular Men’s Clubs? Under the current laws, heterosexuals who are caught committing similar acts can be charged under s. 377. But I cannot, for the life of me recall a single case wherein a heterosexual person was charged under s. 377 for the acts which I’ve described. In fact, most s. 377 cases in the past involved underage sex. And from what I recall, many cases in the past which involved carnal intercourse committed by both homosexuals and heterosexuals came within the ambit of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, (s. 20 for indecent behaviour) and logically so because the burden of proof on the prosecution is much lower under this legislation.

So, if s. 377 is repealed today, and a straight guy happens to commit an offence which can ordinarily be described as a s. 377 offence tomorrow, he will almost certainly be charged under s. 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act. If so, then surely a homosexual committing the same offence can be charged under the same piece of legislation and not s. 377A. Surely this should pave the way for its repeal too?

No one apart from the policy makers themselves will be able to explain why s. 377A is to be retained. Some think it has to do with religious and political sensitivities within Singapore and around the region. But if you think about it, Singapore has already done its fair share to piss off her neighbours, so I really doubt that it gives a damn.

Others say it has to do with the tolerance level of our society and the fear that such a move may upset the electoral majority who are by and large, the ones who seem to be diametrically opposed to homosexuality. But history has shown that the Government has and will continue to do pretty much what it wants without taking into account the views of its people. Take the casino for instance, which generated much debate and controversy. We all know that even prior to the public consultation, the Government had more or less decided it was going to have the casino and the public consultation was nothing more than mere “going through the motion”. But when the Government announced that it was going to have not one but two casinos, many were caught by surprise. No one saw it coming.

Then there is the other, perhaps more pragmatic view which Merv had proferred. He said that the repeal of s. 377A may have the effect of opening up the floodgates to calls or campaigns by both civil activists groups and gay rights groups (Like PLU) for greater equality and gay friendly initiatives like same-sex marriage and child adoption. Although I agree that this is a plausible reason for the Government’s stance, I cannot agree with it in principal for 2 reasons. There is nothing overtly wrong with campaigning for more rights, because that is only natural and in line with societal progression. Next, it is definitely more positive and satisfactory than having an archaic law in place which serves no purpose other than a basis for prejudice and discrimination. And at the end of the day, these groups can campaign all they want but the Government doesn’t have to yield to pressure. Just because it is no longer a crime to engage in gay sex doesn’t equate to a right to marry or a right to adopt although in an ideal world, that would be the logical and ideal state of affairs.

Wee Shu Min's adventurous spirit has earned both her daddy and her a spot in Wikipedia.

If you don't know what the furore is all about, you can check out this link .

Alternatively, these cartoons, which I found, should properly encapsulate the essence of the scandal.

Getting Bushed Out

Bush has finally admitted that the Republican losses during the recent mid-term election were attributable to the Iraq War. But he stopped short of saying that he will be pulling out US troops any time soon. Instead, Donald Rumsfeld seems to have taken the blame because shortly after the election results, Bush announced his resignation as Secretary of Defense, saying the country needs a “fresh perspective” on Iraq.

In my view, the move is nothing but a convenient way out for Bush. Rumsfeld was after all, the chief architect of the Iraq war, so naturally, his ass would be first on the line when things go all awry. But surely it doesn’t take just a Secretary of Defense to make the war happen. What about the other people in the Bush administration? What about Bush himself? Perhaps this mid-term election, which is widely seen as a referendum on Bush and his administration, gives us insight of what’s to come at the next elections. As it stands, the US military seems to be in a position of conflict because on the one hand, their duty is to serve the administration and the country but on the other, they are being wiped out as a result of the policies made by the very administration which they are duty bound to serve and protect. Earlier this year, 8 retired generals including former NATO commander Wesley Clark and former head of the US Central Command Anthony Zinni called for Rumsfled’s resignation, accusing him of mishandling the Iraq war and failing to do post-planning. Well, I wonder what will happen next. We certainly live in exciting times.

Homosexuals not included in Review

In other news closer to home and far more relevant to the gay community, the Home Ministry is looking at reviewing the Penal Code in a bid to introduce new offences, give judges greater flexibility and discretionary power and to repeal irrelevant and archaic laws. These proposed changes are said to be in line with Singapore’s push for a more open, compassionate society. Well, “Hooray!”, if you’re heterosexual.

As part of an extensive review of Singapore's primary criminal legislation, the new Penal Code proposes to de-criminalise anal and oral sex, as long as it's done 'in private between a consenting adult heterosexual couple, aged 16 years and above'. In short, the State wants to stay off private bedroom matters. But on sex between homosexuals, the Ministry has plans to keep the status quo.

Why’s that? Shouldn’t sex between homosexuals be seen as a private bedroom matter? Why the distinction? Didn't the old man openly say in an interview on CNN that big brother will not intefere or harass the lives of people, so long as they don't impinge on others? Shouldn't that be sufficient cause for the Home Ministry to re-look s. 377A and repeal or amend it to be in line with the proposed changes? LKY's remark was made in 1998 in response to a caller's question about his future as a gay man in Singapore. Evidently, little has changed 8 years on and it will continue to remain this way, so long as s. 377A exists in its current form.

According to NUS law lecturer, Associate Prof Kumaranlingam Amirthalingam, he doesn’t think that the Government is prepared to go so far as to include homosexuals in the proposed changes. But he reasons that if you look at the history of prosecution under Section 377, you will be hard pressed to find any prosecutions of homosexual sexual activity between consenting adults within the home. Most prosecutions under this section were made for offences committed in public areas. This, he says is the typical Singaporean way of managing the issue without getting embroiled in the political and social problems that Singaporeans are by and large not ready to face.

So when will Singaporeans be ready? And is this what the gay community should settle for? A compromise? If we keep talking about progression, shouldn't we take this opportunity to take a step in the right direction? LKY had in his interview said that it was not an issue which he or the Government could decide but more a question of what society considers acceptable. It's been 8 years. Isn't it time to table this issue again and consider what society thinks today?

On the other hand, Ellen Lee, member of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Law and former president of Singapore Association of Women Lawyers (SAWL) claims that the general feel is that Singapore isn’t ready to introduce major changes in these areas. She says that “the major changes would be what the government has said a few years ago, that it's all right to have homosexuals working in government departments”.

Oh come on! And you say these proposed changes are said to be in line with Singapore’s push for a more open, compassionate society? Shouldn’t we really be talking about an inclusive society, when we talk about an open, more compassionate society? To do nothing about Section 377A and to keep sex between homosexuals status quo is tantamount to excluding homosexuals from society. So what if it’s now ok for homosexuals to be working for the public sector? It's no consolation to them when they know that there is a law out there which marginalises them, at least where rights and civil liberties are concerned. We will get protection of the law as citizens, but as homosexuals, the law affords no protection or even respect.

Anyway, the Ministry of Home Affairs has invited the public to give their feedback and views via the Consultation Channel in the REACH portal. The public consultation starts on 9 Nov and will last till 9 Dec. As the Ministry will consider all feedback before tabling the updated proposed amendments in Parliament in the first half of next year, feel free to air your views, if you feel strongly about this or any other issue.

watching "today in parliament" is kind of like watching comedy central. No, maybe worse, like a bad local sitcom with major cringe factor. It's bad enough that our Ministers and MPs dress inappropriately, it's absolutely horrendous and embarrasing to hear them speak. And to think that I had expected more from the younger MPs. I've heard hawkers speak better than Teo Ser Luck and Tan Chin Siong. Why can't the Government send them for public speaking lessons or something. I've no doubt that they are capable and highly successful people in their own right. But as representives of the ruling party and leaders of our country, surely it isn't unreasonable to expect more. Isn't it high time we place more emphasis on public speaking?

And on this note, I think the Government should hire image consultants to spruce up the look of some of the MPs, and while they are at it, do something about Mdm Ho. Oh I don't know! Maybe give her hair extensions, reconstruct her face and make her less butch. She scares the shit out of me.

If you like a movie with gore and a cute guy, then you must catch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the Beginning. It's gory from start to finish!

During my so-called “denial years”, I would sometimes think about the number of kids I would have and the names that I would give them. Zachary if I had a boy and Natasha if I had a girl. I would also fantasize about being a good (single) father and about the stuff I would do with my kids. It all seemed very picture perfect back then. Although I was in denial about my sexuality at the time, I didn’t think that this denial would extend to my desire of having kids.

Well, apparently quite a lot changes when you’re out of the closet and new to the scene. Your priorities and direction can change overnight and the things which you thought were important to you may end up taking a backseat. Coming out is like being given a new lease of life. You feel young, invincible, energetic and always game for adventure and hedonistic pleasures. With all that in mind and with so much catching up to do, the last thing you want to think about is having kids.

For me, the notion of fatherhood faded away when I walked out of the closet, stepped into my pink dancing shoes and pranced my way into Taboo like Rudolf on E. The thought of having a son named Zachary died altogether when I had a deed poll drafted to have it added as my middle name instead. (Would have been totally weird if I had used Natasha, don’t you think?)

So, not only did I stop thinking about having kids, I actually started to develop a certain aversion to them. Maybe it was because being gay puts you in a totally different realm. Your view of things change and you feel like you’re a cut above heterosexuals who are by and large perceived to be ignorant. Whenever I look at my straight friends and their kids, I would secretly mock them for the way they look (which is for the most part, terrible) and for the freedom which they have given up. Whenever I’m attending their gatherings and I see how pre-occupied they are with their yelping kids and fussy wives, I can’t help but tell myself how lucky I am. Cats (I only had cats back then) were way easier.

It’s been 8 years since I came out. I would like to think that I’ve mellowed and matured over the years, because my view of things and my priorities have changed yet again. And strangely enough, I’m starting to wonder about kids again.

Just this morning, a buddy of mine who is an expecting father, dropped me an email, attaching the photograph of a newborn son of another friend. It got me thinking. Yes, we may laugh and scorn all we want at our straight buddies for now, but who is going to have the last laugh at the end? The one thing that a gay man will never get to experience or enjoy is fatherhood. Fatherhood isn’t just about having a kid. It’s about responsibility, self-discovery and self-development. It is a life-long learning process which begins even before your kid is born. That kind of experience is something which money cannot buy and the gay lifestyle cannot offer, unless of course, the Government relaxes it’s rules on adoption.

Currently, the gay culture in Singapore is still relatively young and as not many of us know of gay people who are already in their twilight years. As a result, we may not be able to relate or draw from their experiences. But it doesn’t mean it’s not real. We will all grow old one day. The parties will eventually stop. We will be a liability to any gym. And because we will all look like shrivelled prunes with similar looking dicks to match, there’s no sex-life to speak of. So, it doesn’t take an intelligent person to know that life as an aging gay man can be a lonesome one because you don’t have a family to call your own and a family to depend on. You only have your friends and/or your partner, if they survive you that is.